Wind and Solar Developers Get Access to U.S. Land Used by Pentagon

WASHINGTON, D.C. --
The U.S. will give wind- and solar- energy companies access to 16 million acres of federal land previously set aside for military testing and training.

The Interior and Defense departments agreed to encourage energy development on the public lands, which may contribute to the generation of 10,000 megawatts of solar power in the U.S. Southwest, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said today a conference call.

“This agreement is going to help save the taxpayers billions of dollars in fuel costs, increase our national security and help protect the environment,” Reid said.

President Barack Obama is supporting alternative energy as a way to diversify away from oil and reduce the need for crude imports from the Middle East. Republicans including presidential candidate Mitt Romney criticized the administration for slowing energy development on federal land.

52 Comments

It's a more powerful argument to answer with substance instead of predictable personal attacks. Trying to engage people in a dialogue to exchange verifiable facts and apply arithmetic is about as far from "talking points" as possible. Do you want to talk W/m2?

The bedtime story of universal cottage solar or massive grid solar breaks down when the real numbers are exposed. Saying it is '15 times better' than anything else and just wait and see how great it will be isn't sufficient. Please somebody give me a number from NREL or some other credible institution's research for state of the art HCPV or any other non-alien space bat solar that really exists today so we can do some arithmetic. Math is the universal language and essential to separating fact from fiction. If I go with the NREL study that just came out and use 48W/m2 (4 times higher than what PVWATTS puts out for default rooftop solar BTW), it requires 230,000 square miles just to power the 27 quadrillion BTUs for transportation, not the full 98 quads required for our full annual power needs. Moulder, you're going to need a lot more bulldozers.

@robin I love your space bats comment, I was referring to the power produced HCPV vs. Conventional PV (crystalline or thin film) in terms of the footprint required.
I terms of actual installations, I have worked on one utility-scale project in Italy that is currently functioning and developing more. Without space bats I might add. You see unlike in the US, our European counterparts take solar seriously. And every solar installation will set them that much further away from their dependence on imported energy.

Also, this assumes I take a free ride on the grid and get my night time power from the fossil utility company plant at the same cost I sell it during the day. But, if EVERYONE is going to do this and we get rid of fossil power, that $28k also has to include a storage system for, say, 3 days power, call that 200 kw-hrs.

So, for the country to go to the solar tech you’re championing, we really need to pay more, a WHOLE LOT MORE, than 12 cent per kw.

“Roof-top solar provides most of what we would need” - OK, let’s look at that:

Given a rough solar flux of 1000W /sq-meter, 20% efficient collector, and average house size of say 1500 sq-ft. This allows for say a 750 sq ft collector (set at an angle on an angled roof so that it’s getting the sun from the south at a good average annual angle (I don’t live on the equator). That’s 750 ft^2 x 0.0929 m^2/ft^2 x 1 kW/m^2 x 0.20 = 13.9 kw, peak. Give this a 30% capacity factor (no sun at night, less early/later in day, clouds) and you come up with: 13.9 kw * 24 hr/day * 30 day/month * 0.30 = 3002 kw/month.

Ok, great, this is more than enough power to supply my monthly energy needs in summer. Let’s say I get to put any extra into the grid. And the rate where I live is 12 cent/kw-hr. So this is worth: 3000 kw-hr * $0.12/kw-hr = $360 / month.

All right, I’m going to borrow this money. Money is cheap now, great. So lets say 6% on a ten year loan with a $360 payment. I can borrow $32,400 with this payment. But wait, the bank wants me in insure this investment (gee, imagine that), so let say Great Farm wants $50 a month for that. And this is uber tech, so I have ZERO maintenance cost for the first 10 years and the installer gave me a 10 year, 100% warranty.

Ok, now I’ve got $310 per month, at 6% for 10 years or $28,000 to spend. So how may bids will I get for a 750 sq foot collector, guaranteed 20% efficient, with all mounting hardware and labor, electrical equipment, inverters, etc, and a 10 year, 100 % warranty.

Oh, and it’s designed for a 100 mph wind load (I live in a hurricane zone, Gulf coast you know). Are the bidders going to line up for this? Will any contractor's actually deliver this?

“Roof-top solar provides most of what we would need” - OK, let’s look at that:

Given a rough solar flux of 1000W /sq-meter, 20% efficient collector, and average house size of say 1500 sq-ft. This allows for say a 750 sq ft collector (set at an angle on an angled roof so that it’s getting the sun from the south at a good average annual angle (I don’t live on the equator). That’s 750 ft^2 x 0.0929 m^2/ft^2 x 1 kW/m^2 x 0.20 = 13.9 kw, peak. Give this a 30% capacity factor (no sun at night, less early/later in day, clouds) and you come up with: 13.9 kw * 24 hr/day * 30 day/month * 0.30 = 3002 kw/month.

Ok, great, this is more than enough power to supply my monthly energy needs in summer. Let’s say I get to put any extra into the grid. And the rate where I live is 12 cent/kw-hr. So this is worth: 3000 kw-hr * $0.12/kw-hr = $360 / month.

All right, I’m going to borrow this money. Money is cheap now, great. So lets say 6% on a ten year loan with a $360 payment. I can borrow $32,400 with this payment. But wait, the bank wants me in insure this investment (gee, imagine that), so let say Great Farm wants $50 a month for that. And this is uber tech, so I have ZERO maintenance cost for the first 10 years and the installer gave me a 10 year, 100% warranty.

Ok, now I’ve got $310 per month, at 6% for 10 years or $28,000 to spend. So how may bids will I get for a 750 sq foot collector, guaranteed 20% efficient, with all mounting hardware and labor, electrical equipment, inverters, etc, and a 10 year, 100 % warranty.

Oh, and it’s designed for a 100 mph wind load (I live in a hurricane zone, Gulf coast you know). Are the bidders going to line up for this? Will any contractor's actually deliver this?

“Promise of HCPV … producing 5 to 15 times the power”? Unless you get your greater than 100% tech from ASBs (alien space bats), this doesn’t add up. If you divide 100% by 5 you get 20%, by 15 is 6.7% Commercial cells of over 20% are now on the market. So are you claiming near 100% efficiency????

@ anonymous I didn't say solar was $.70kwh that was was maurice-turgoen. I'm am a proponent of solar....I LOVE solar. I think eventually it will be the power of the future especially for homes, businesses, commerical and the like. However by sad experience and FIRST hand knowledge Harry Reid is a LIAR. To have him involved in the solar projects in Nevada and make no mistake about it Harry will be involved is like having the racoon watch the hen house because the fox will kill and eat the chickens. (For those of you who don't know racoons will do the same). Harry is and will continue to have his dirty hands in someone's pocket on this. It will be just like Solyndra...it isn't the solar product, technology, products or systems that are the problem. It's those in charge of the money. They continue to plunder the US taxpayer in the name of 'green energy'. Follow the MONEY...it always seems to end back up in some congressional leaders campaign coffer. This is includes our current POTUS. There has been more 'laundry' done during this administration than the last 43 presidents combined.

@Cliff " I've asked this forum four times and no one will answer. Give us your W/m2 power density details and the EROI considering backup power needs to maintain assured energy supply and the references for your data so we can all look it up and do the land-use calculations ourselves in the open"

Cliff you have to get out of the grid-tied(J.P Morgan) mentality if you want to see our future. Distributed Equilibrium. Onsite Power generation. Perfect example is Bloom Energy (SOFC) check out the two dozen corporations that have alredy switched. http://www.bloomenergy.com/customer-fuel-cell//

@robin roof-top solar provides most of what we would need. Thats the promise of HCPV having a smaller footprint and producing 5x to 15x the power of conventional PV. Sorry but you can put your bulldozers away. Or at least use them to plow under the old fashoned outdated coal and oil fired powerplants.

Graft and corruption are the VP of the USA (cheney), who was previously the CEO of Halliburton, having succeeded in starting ANOTHER oil war in Iraq on the premise of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction! The general criticism of renewables by Cliff, Maurice, and others here, stinks of fossil fuel cronyism to high heaven. I have worked as an engineer in the oil business for 16 years in my previous career. Cheap oil is dead and gone and will not come back! The EROEI of tar sands is a horrible joke, and the environmental damage of the whole tar sands value chain is a crime against all humanity! Depletion rates of Bakken shale oil and shale gas in generalare lightning fast, and current drilling will not keep up with depletion 2 years from now.

@Cliff "tell me about how solar (PV or concentrating) is going to replace 27 quadrillion BTU of energy the U.S. currently uses just for transportation every year"

Cliff -HCPV is just one of list of alternative energy aproaches. Its advantages compared to Fossil Fuel based power generation.
1. The footprint required is 1/5 that of conventional solar PV. 2. The cost is cheaper than natural gas per kwh when you take into consideration the costs involved in developing and processing. 3. Once installed designed to provide upto 90% nameplate over 30 years. 4. zero pollution, hazardous waste or CO2

If you want to talk about transport than you have just as many choices 1. electric - and don't give me any BS about battery techlogy not being up to the task - the patent restrictions on the Ovshinsky battery system that GM sold to Chevron (who is preventing other companies from manufaturing it) is up in 2014. Then all bets are off. Toyoda and Honda are already gearing up. 300mile range - 4 hour recharge for an average American vehicle. The GM-China partnership for next gen cars already started2. Sterling engine - just wait till you see what Dean Kamen has up his sleeve. 3. Hydrogen systems on-demand and stored in metal hydride. This has been viable for the past 30 years. 4. LENR based powerplant to provide electrical power.

I could go on for hours. you want names, research falilites and data. It all there. Speaking of names How about yours?

Line up bulldozers blade to blade for 100 miles. Drive them forward for 100 miles. Put collector's edge to edge for the entire 10,000 sq. miles. Then build a coast to coast grid to move it all and a >90% eff storage system for 3+ days of the entire country's electrical power needs.

@John, tell me about how solar (PV or concentrating) is going to replace 27 quadrillion BTU of energy the U.S. currently uses just for transportation every year. I've asked this forum four times and no one will answer. Give us your W/m2 power density details and the EROI considering backup power needs to maintain assured energy supply and the references for your data so we can all look it up and do the land-use calculations ourselves in the open.

One other point being neglected is solar only works on sunny days. Street lights, computers surfing U-tube and Electric cars want power at night....

To compare solar capacity to fossil fuel, you need about 2.7 times as much solar to equal a unit of fossil (90% capacity factor vs about 33%), unless it's used for peaking....

Solar works well as a 'peaking' energy source for daytime loads, but... it's not currently possible to economical store electrical power. And no, most people would need to charge EV's at night, they are out during the day, work and things like that.

So this means you need to compare solar to the cost of simple cycle natural gas fired gas turbines. Not easy to complete with, especially as you need to install the gas turbines anyway, for power on days when the sun doesn't shine.

Also, how long will these solar panels last. Fossil Power plants are designed for a 30 year life, but expected to last 50+ years. Will solar cells decay in 10 years, 20, 30, 50??? And my understanding is that many PV sites accept the reduced output caused by dirt collectors, as added power produced by clean collectors is not worth the cost of the labor required to clean them.

John I've read the same stuff, mostly from some group who want a grant, which is fine but as I've said repeatedly, when the technology supports the claims investors will jump on this like "white on rice".

If you would like to install a PV system today on your dime, you and your money will soon be parted.

I did have a considerable investment in coal, oil and transportation until Obama declared war on them and I lost my shirt overnight.

@cliff I must have struck a nerve. If what you just said were were true than you would know what has just happened with concentrated PV. All the competition has been cleared out for three companies( all of which are owned by FF interests). At present triple junction is between 29 and 31% effecient. The new five juction is close to 50%. These are NREL numbers not mine. My question to both you and Maurice is do you make a living (speculating) in the Fossil Fuel Industry?

@John: I am not foolish enough to base my opinions on the PC Press or the Malibu Institute of Technology or corrupt politicians or panderers of perpetual motion machines. I research the science journals for the latest and most thorough, full-scale, real-world, end-to-end life-cycle analyses and correspond with academic and industry experts, some with contradictory opinions and perspectives. A decent STEM education and a healthy dose of skepticism also help to sift the wheat from the chaff. The only hope for the future health of America's energy supply and continued economic prominence is for more of the voting public to do the same.

John change is only good if it's in the right direction. As Cliff pointed out engineers state the facts and marketing people lie.

I say let the market decide when something is ready for mass production. If you can't get an informed investor (without gov intervention) it's not worth investing in. There will be a lot of mad solar users when their rooftop gets hit by lightning or the gov. quits propping up their investment or the really worthy systems come on the market.

BTW I've been involved in energy and R & D over 50 years but don't spend much time pouring over massaged numbers.

@Cliff If you believe you just wrote that than that wave has already swept you away. It is like a chess game, and the moves are made through public opinion and not fact. Those opinions are shaped and propogated through MSM outlets. The 'sound Bites' you suggest just continue to serve to shape public opinion. Only the indivduals who are directly involved know the truth.

@John: What we have witnessed and are witnessing with the demise of many "green energy" companies is the facts catching up to the lie and real science catching up to "investment brochure science." Green energy proponents generally neglect to count all the conventional energy inputs required for their processes and promise what amounts to perpetual motion to their investors and the government who are foolish enough to subsidize their schemes. Nature is not fooled. Perpetual motion is not achievable no matter how many $ Billions are thrown at it. What we are still waiting for is real science to catch up with our government who keeps pouring taxpayer money into this bottomless pit.

Maurice, there is a wave of change coming and it unstoppable. All the best efforts the Fossil Fuel Industry is puting into trying to stop it wasted. The real question here is who is going to be at the helm. American and European billionares or Chinese Billionares. It will be very interesting to see how it all plays out. If I were you I would consider jumping ship, or you will be washed away like the manufactures of the horse drawn carriage in the 20th century.

Cliff- I agree with some of what you state here. The current biofuel industry is simply processing fossil fuels through crops with slight energy profit. My answer to that is that there are too many perverse incentives keeping this industrial model in place. Move biofuel incentives to solutions that minimize use of fossil fuels and the benefits will eventually be delivered. But this point is a total distraction from the fact that huge military expenses go to protect global supply lines of oil. There is absolutely no doubt we would not need huge military efforts to protect domestic wind and solar production, and that increasing electrification of transport would ultimately reduce the effects of "trouble" in the global oil supply chain. How much oil is Iran delivering to the global market now, by the way? Libya? Syria? Mexico (hint-hurricane Ernesto)?

Now that all the competition to the fossil fuel owned alternative energy(Wind and Solar) companies has been eliminated (at least from their perspective), this land becomes avaiable. Now magically we should see the return of investment funding and bank capitol loans, where six months ago US solar companies could borrow a dime to buy materials to fill existing orders.

With the tremendous influx of gov aid to solar why is the sector folding? It takes a tremendous investment and a rooftop full or solar to heat a cup of water in the microwave.

How can an electric car be considered a reliable form of transportation when it needs to be recharged every 40 miles in the winter? How is it recharged? Mostly by coal. They should be called coal cars.

How can you fly a plane with solar? A 2 ft x 4 ft solar panel produces about 15 watts of energy figure how many you need to run a 4500 watt water heater, even on a sunny day.

I agree solar is worth R & D but mass production at this point in time, and as an electrical contractor, I wish it was not so.

What we have all witnessed in the solar/wind industry in the past 9 months has been most horrible catastrophe in US history. Basically the total distruction of American technological innovation and America's economic future for the sake of a handful powerful individuals and dying fossil fuel industry. The 30 of the US's best and brightest alt. energy companies, billions in investment, ip and technology sold at auction to China for $0.05 on the dollar.

@Todd: Oil price surges so far have been far more due to financial speculation by the likes of Morgan Stanley rather than because any significant fraction of global oil supply has ever been interdicted. If the Strait of Hormuz was closed, that would indeed be a major crisis that would interrupt oil to many countries absolutely dependent upon it like our ally Japan, and drive prices through the roof. Persian Gulf oil is only 16.4% of U.S. imported oil--less than 3% of total U.S. energy. We would continue to get all the oil we needed, but would be paying through the nose for it like the rest of the world. What most people don't acknowledge is that the price of biofuels follows the price of oil (check the markets) because biofuels are absolutely dependent upon petroleum for fertilizer, pesticide, herbicide, farm equipment fuel, distillation heat, electricity, enzyme manufacture, and for the hydrogen to hydro-treat the alcohols and esters of biofuels into the true hydrocarbon drop-in fuels that the military and airlines are testing. This dependency, and the poor EROIs of biofuels, dictate that the price of these liquid biofuels can never be lower than oil--they ride on the back of oil. The U.S. is wise to spend a considerable amount of money ensuring the free flow of oil AND TRADE around the world. Closure of any of the world's major sea lanes would quickly empty Walmart store shelves and consumers' wallets. It would be nice if the rest of the world helped pay the bill, but that comes with the cost of having rival superpowers. Just stop and think this through.

sahm seems to feel 11 to 14 cents/kw-hr is a reasonable cost. Well, for RETAIL that would be so, but....

This is WHOLESALE power. The Plant I work at would be rolling in money at $110-$140 per MW-hr. That wholesale rate is being driven by a California government MANDATE that a set percentage of electrical power come from renewables. So companies have to pay whatever it costs. I'd guess it will result in RETAIL rates over 20 cents per kw-hr.

@energyhawaii. If you look at the reference I provided above it counts all forms of direct federal financial interventions across all government agencies including subsidies, grants, loan guarantees and tax breaks. If you have better numbers than this 2011 government report, than please share them. I said zero return on investment for green energy to be kind. Subtracting any income tax revenue and energy excise tax income from the outgoing subsidy money would leave a huge negative balance of cash being bled from taxpayers to prop up these efforts. (Oil industry workers pay taxes too, BTW). The DOE counts $34.7B total spent in Recovery Act stimulus funds so far that have created 60,000 "green" jobs, of which only about 4,000 are permanent according a the Washington Post analysis. That's more than half a million per temp job and over $8M per permanent job. What EROI do you get? (sources: 1. "Loan Programs Office?» Our Projects." Department of Energy, https://lpo.energy.gov/?page_id=45 ; 2. Leonnig, Carol D., and Steven Mufson. "Obama Green-tech Program That Backed Solyndra Struggles to Create Jobs." The Washington Post, September 14, 2011, sec. Business. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-green-tech-program-that-backed-solyndra-struggles-to-create-jobs/2011/09/07/gIQA9Zs3SK_story.html ).

ANONYMOUS
August 9, 2012

h2solarsytems, where do you get information from. Quoting here that Solar power cost is $0.70 per kWH is absurd unless you are in an area where there should not be Solar Power installed. You think thousands of Californians spent money and put solar panels on their roofs for such price? Do you think company installing solar cells and leasing them is taking such losses? Why do you lie here and why moderator is not watching your absurd posts and language? Sure site ie taken over by SWIFT BOATING or they will watch this. Did you know that KeyStone pipeline will pump oil from Canada and is not oil produced in USA and will travel over some sensitive aquifers and will stop all the exploration and production from Texas to Dakotas for all the Shale Fracking? Do you know that during Obama administration domestic gas and oil production quantities are highest as compared to of any previous administration when totals are considered. Do you know that this adminstration has not only challenged whole new concept of car/pickup design with domestic Aluminum that will reduce car weight, fatalities and will provide 50 mile per gallon for Crew Cab Pick up Truck by reducing its total weight by almost one ton? So, be truthful and discuss facts, yes I do not want KeyStone Pipe line and let Canada sell their oil to CHINA thus bringing crude price down some more. Thank to those policy makers who are looking at fracking and its water related issues, those are nothing as compared to BP tragedy, Exxon Valdez or what can happen at sensitive aquifers with candian oil pipeline called KEYSTONE, so get away from SWIFT BOATING and as puppet of KOC& brothers to put solar power down and make living in honest way and not from PAYOLA.

The oil industry cannot compete if the Middle East destabilizes, which would cause global oil prices to skyrocket and make alternatives viable and more attractive than oil. Therefore, the US taxpayer has used TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS in TWO wars the last 25 years in IRAQ alone. This is the ultimate energy subsidy and makes any direct support of renewables look like pocket change. But a close second in government subsidies is what is used on cleaning up accidents like Deepwater Horizon and various minimum safety and environmental compliance on thousands of offshore installations. This is much worse than Solyndra or any other alleged cronyism in renewables.

It seems worth noting that the three major utilities in California are purchasing solar power today on long term fixed rate contracts for a little under 9¢/kWh + a 20% bonus during peak summer hours, for an averaged cost of 11¢. This is supported by an investment tax credit of 30%, so without the Federal subsidy, the real cost of commercial scale solar is currently 14¢/kWh. (see California Public Utilities Commission, Renewable Auction Mechanism, highest reported clearing price November 2011 for systems 20 MW and under)

@energyhawaii: From a specially requested 2011 DOE report to Congress, here is the reality of direct subsidies and tax breaks for U.S. energy from all federal government agencies for 2010: Federal government subsidies to big oil totaled $2.8B. Alternative energy subsidies totaled $14.7B. Oil and gas were subsidized at a rate of 27 cents per barrel of petroleum energy consumed. Biofuels received $10.46 per barrel of oil equivalent energy (BOE) output. Wind received $31.33 per BOE. Solar received subsidies at the rate of $59.60 per BOE. The federal government collected $36B from big oil corporate income taxes in 2009 (2010 data not avail.), and also collected $32.7B in 2010 from consumers paying gasoline excises taxes of 18.4 cents/gallon and diesel excise taxes of 24.4 cents a gallon. All told, the feds netted $6.28 in revenue per barrel of oil consumed, a very respectable ROI for their 27 cent investment, but flushed the $14.7B of alternative energy subsidies down the drain for zero ROI. This was just the latest installment in a total of $34.7B of stimulus money given away to friends of the Administration for green energy pipe dreams and outright scams like Cello and Solyndra and Range Fuels. Stop getting your disinformation about $300 subsidies from the Malibu Institute of Technology or the greenwashed PC Press and research the facts. Sources: 1. Direct Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Year 2010. Energy Information Agency, July 2011. http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/ ; 2.'DOE-Loan Programs Office?» Our Projects', https://lpo.energy.gov/?page_id=45 ).

How about the federal government not send any more taxpayer money for energy to Nevada and Harry Reid until they open up the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal site we spent $7 billion dollars on. That would help stimulate the economy and allow much safer storage of the spent fuel rods that are currently sitting in powerplants around the country.

Josh, I don't believe that coal & oil have "giant" gov subsidies but, if they do their subsidies and all subsidies to other sectors (along with foeign aid to countries who hate us)should be removed.

Coal & oil would do great if no gov existed, they don't want to destroy the enviroment any more than you or I. When gov picks winners & loosers..we all loose. The oil companies have amassed huge wealth because they have not been able to drill where it makes most sense.

nadian, I agree nuclear could very well be a much greater asset. Waste disposal? I doesn't cost much more to guard 100 acres as it does to guard 1000 acres. I lived for many years less than 100 ft from a nuclear reactor. I often went to the sub's reactor compartment to study because it was so well light, clean and safe.

Wind however, seems to be viable source. If you have facts saying something else, I would love to hear them.

"But if a technology can't survive without goverment subsidy or intervention it does not deserve to be mass produced."

If coal and oil were to have their giant government subsidies removed they: a) would be able to stand on their own feet. They generate enough money to remain being self sustainable and b) this would allow for better funding for the development of more efficient renewable energy production.

Sorry to see John leave. But if a technology can't survive without goverment subsidy or intervention it does not deserve to be mass produced.

There are numerous forms of renewable energy available but solar seems the least efficient today. Why pour our precious resources into a poor product. Develop these products in the lab, do pilot programs but don't mass produce until they make sense.

As far as Keystone is concerned, why would anyone object to it being done by the private sector on their dime? Do we not want to put people to work? Will sending coal or oil to China help our economy or enviroment?

Badmouth coal all you want but it is still need if you want to turn the lights on tomorrow or until we develop better renewables down the road.

I don't think John can handle the truth or has been brainwashed into thinking the Goverment has unlimitted resourses and knowledge on this subject.

Solar and Wind? The legacy of Congressional lunacy and payola from interested and paid lobbies.
Someone should tell them that the only known and efficient way to store our only energy resource, "the sun", is in organic plants. Wonder where the water went during these extended periods of drought? Consider the fact that the U.S. has about 35% more woody biomass growing today than in 1900. Seems that oats are no longer required to fuel our transportation, and much of that crop land has been retired for the benefit of forests, woodlands, and invasive plant species. Also consider the fact that water is required for photosynthesis. Therefore, about 35% more water is stored in trees today than in 1900. The magnificent and world's largest ponderosa forest in the world stretches from Utah to New Mexico. Today this forest has about 300 to 500 ponderosa trees per acre, instead of the historic 30 to 50 trees per acre. This is in the southwest, where water is the fact of all life to many times. Arizona has 6 inch diameter trees growing in thickets of hundreds of small trees with 60 years of growth rings. Not enough sunlight. Not enough water. CO2 enters the plant, but without sun and water, the tree can't use the carbon for growth with the necessary bio-process photosynthesis, so the tree releases CO2 into the atmosphere rather than the plant/animal symbiotic release of oxygen(O2).
The small diameter and invasive species have been controlled by the entirely natural disruption of low-temperature fires. The organic material on the floor is burned, while the thick bark of the pine eliminates damage to the biological process of the trees. But the natural disruption of fire has been eliminated. And the maintenance of the great natural assets by man disturbance has also been eliminated by congressional policy, litigation, shuttered, auctioned, and rusting infrastructure. Congressman Reid, why not include the employment of biomass as a member of energy triage on the military bases?

This could be a great start for new tech., if they do it right. There is an impressive new wind turbine and patent just waiting for a real opportunity like this. It is also in need of a philanthropist/investor to take it world wide. it is at lucrativeproducts.com..